Pawan Kumar vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S)442 OF 2019

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Crl.) No(s). 7713/2017)

PAWAN KUMAR & ORS. APPELLANT(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH RESPONDENT(s)

J U D G M E N T

1. None appears for the appellants. We have gone through

the records with the assistance of the learned counsel

for the respondent.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellants were apprehended with a vehicle

carrying 22 logs of Khair wood. They did not produce any

authorization or permit with regard to the same. Their Signature Not Verified

prosecution under Section 379, IPC read with Sections 41 Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2019.03.12 12:37:04 IST Reason:

and 42 of the Indian Forest Act culminated in acquittal

1 under Section 379, IPC by the Magistrate. The conviction

under the Forest Act was for six months.

4. The conviction under the Forest Act was assailed

before the Sessions Judge in appeal. The appellants were

acquitted as neither the Khair wood logs nor the lorry in

which it was being transported were produced as exhibits.

The independent witness of seizure also did not support.

5. In the appeal against acquittal by the State, the

High Court held that the independent witness did not deny

his signatures on the seizure memo. In view of a sample

of the log having been produced, non-production of the

vehicle was not relevant, reversing the acquittal and

sentencing the appellants under Sections 41 and 42 of the

Forest Act for three months with fine of Rs.500/- with a

default stipulation of one month.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent

in opposition to the appeal and considered the nature of

evidence available. Non-production of the seized wood

and the vehicle, the primary evidence of the offence,

2 renders the prosecution case fragile and unsustainable.

Mere production of the seizure memo does not tantamount

to the production of the seized woods and the lorry.

Unless the seized wood was produced, mere production of a

sample, and there is no material in support that the

sample was out of the same 22 logs, we are unable to

sustain the conviction of the appellants.

7. Since we do not have the benefit of the presence of

the appellants, the status of the sentence is not known.

Even while we acquit the appellants, if they have

undergone the sentence, they shall stand acquitted of the

charge.

8. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

......................J. [NAVIN SINHA]

......................J. [M.R. SHAH] NEW DELHI;

MARCH 06, 2019.

3